Washington & Hamilton: An Interview with the Authors

In addition to being a history
buff, I’m a bit of a groupie when it comes to historians. I definitely have my
favorite authors. Today, two of my newest favorites, Dr. Stephen Knott and TonyWilliams, answer a few questions about the pivotal relationship between George
Washington and Alexander Hamilton.

Q: Dr. Knott,
it looks like you’ve written several books spanning a number of
Presidents. What was it that compelled you to write this particular book?

Steve - I
had been wanting to write for some time a book on what I viewed as the most
critical relationship of the founding era, that of George Washington and
Alexander Hamilton. This relationship has been slighted or ignored by many
historians and biographers who have tended to focus on the more poetic
relationship between Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, or Jefferson and John
Adams. When Tony Williams approached me with the idea that we pool our efforts
to write such a book, I jumped at the opportunity.

Q: Tony, your writing is, at first glance, a bit more
eclectic although focused also on America’s founding. If there’s a common
theme, I’d say you seem to target “pivotal moments” in the same way Steve
writes about Presidents. Am I reading that right? And why this subject as the
topic for your next book?

Tony - My
books focus on trying to understand the American character from the colonial
period and founding. I think that the word “pivotal moments” is a good
description.My primary interest and
area of expertise is the American Revolution and founding. I am presently
writing a solo biography of Alexander Hamilton that will be published next
year, and I am preparing a book on James Madison.

Q: Even if you’re an expert in the subject, there’s
got to be a significant amount of research involved in writing a book like
this. How long does it typically take from conception to completion?

Steve - Tony
may remember this differently, but we had both, separately, begun to write
about this critical relationship, so when we decided to pool our efforts it
went relatively quickly, perhaps nine months to a year. There was a significant
amount of research involved, but the internet provides remarkably quick access
to the papers of all the founding fathers. Being a transplanted Virginian, Tony
knows Washington better than I do, and I had written a book on Hamilton many
years ago, so we complimented each other quite nicely.

Q: What’s the biggest misperception you think people
have of Alexander Hamilton? George Washington?

Steve - There
are so many misperceptions surrounding Alexander Hamilton – that he was an
elitist, a plutocrat, a monarchist, a dictatorially-inclined adventurer, and
some have even gone so far as to suggest that he had fascist inclinations. All
of these misconceptions can be traced back to the campaign directed by
Jefferson and his lieutenants to destroy Hamilton. Hamilton was the first
American victim of the politics of personal destruction, and the effects of
that campaign can be felt to this day. It was a remarkably successful public
relations, or propaganda effort, whose echoes still can be heard in the writings
of many progressive historians and biographers.

The greatest misconception
surrounding George Washington concerns his alleged lack of intellect and the
idea that as president he was controlled by the conniving immigrant from the
Caribbean, Alexander Hamilton. No person ever controlled Washington, yet the Jeffersonian
went to great lengths to make the case that he was either a puppet of Hamilton’s,
or had entered his dotage and was unware of Hamilton’s malicious schemes. This
is all fiction, but it still resonates in some quarters.

Q: You state a few times that Hamilton was viewed as a
monarchist, then and now. I tend to hear the charge of “statist” levied against
him more often these days. Was he either?

Steve - The
monarchist charge stems from Hamilton’s speech at the Constitutional Convention
in June, 1787, when he proposed a president elected for life (pending good
behavior) and a Senate elected for life as well. This was anathema to the
anti-Federalists, and in fact was seen as somewhat extreme by most of the delegates
at the Convention, but it was likely a tactic designed to make the more
moderate nationalist or centralizing proposals appear more reasonable, more
palatable. Nonetheless, when Madison broke with Hamilton and allied himself
with Jefferson, Madison broke the pledge of confidentiality that all the delegates
to the Convention had sworn themselves to, and informed Jefferson of Hamilton’s
“monarchical” speech. They knew they had a weapon to use against Hamilton, and
they wielded it with consummate skill. Labeling someone a monarchist in the
1790s was the equivalent of calling someone a communist in the 1950s. It was
designed to remove you from the public sphere. Bottom line: Hamilton was not a
monarchist, but was intent on infusing as many elements of permanence and
stability into the Constitution as he possibly could. He was particularly
determined to do this when it came to the most important issue any government
faces: matters of war and peace. He was also not a statist, despite what many
of his libertarian critics say about him. He wanted an ‘energetic government’
but one that was focused on truly national questions: war, international
commerce, foreign relations. The idea that he would have endorsed the New Deal
or the Great Society is ludicrous. He considered most matters to be
appropriately dealt with at the state and local level, and mentioned his
concern in The Federalist Papers that
the power over a man’s subsistence was a power over a man’s will. This is not
the thinking of someone who would have favored the modern welfare state.

Q: My favorite hero from the American Revolution is
Lafayette. Like Hamilton, he was an aide and close confident of Washington –
another one who could claim to be “like a son” to the general. I wondered if
you had any insights on what the two men thought of each other.

Tony - Yes,
Washington and Lafayette had a very close relationship over many years in which
it was, as Steve said, affectionate.General Washington had a close eye for talented young men as aides and
officers, and Hamilton and Lafayette were among the closest (and had their own
close friendship).Lafayette viewed the
American Revolution’s fight for freedom with a Romantic vision, and idolized
Washington.Washington had a magnanimous
affection for Lafayette.The
relationship bore fruit during the Revolutionary War, but Lafayette returned to
France, so that relationship could not have remotely the same impact on the
founding and shape of the country that Washington and Hamilton had.

Q: I saw Michael Newton’s tweet asking if you felt the
alliance between Washington and Hamilton was even more important than that
between Madison and Jefferson to the founding of this country. How would you
respond?

Steve - This
would be a heretical statement for many scholars of the founding era, but I do
believe the alliance between Washington and Hamilton was more important than
any other. If you remove Washington from the scene, it is unlikely that the
United States wins the American Revolution. Washington was not necessarily a
great General, but he understood something very important – if he could keep
his army alive, the “Glorious Cause” had a chance to succeed. With Hamilton at
his side, that Army did survive. And Hamilton, perhaps more than any other man,
continually urged Washington to remain in the public square, to help convert
the sacrifices of the “Glorious Cause” into something tangible and permanent.
It was Hamilton, along with Madison, who led the call for the Annapolis
Convention, which in turn led to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia.
And Hamilton played a key role in persuading Washington to attend the Convention,
and preside over its sessions. Washington’s presence at the Convention was
critical toward winning public acceptance of the Constitution. He was trusted,
and was, in fact, the only national figure that Americans from New Hampshire to
Georgia would have recognized. Hamilton then appeals to Washington’s ego, and
more importantly his sense of honor, to accept the presidency under the newly
established government. The two men go on to erect a number of institutions,
and set a number of precedents, that allow the United States to emerge, decades
and centuries later, as a superpower. Washington was the indispensable man, and
his alliance with Hamilton was the indispensable alliance.

Tony - The
Madison and Jefferson relationship was undoubtedly important.To some degree, it bore fruit in the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom (though Jefferson was in Paris at the time).They formed an oppositional party in the
1790s, and did not build any American institutions besides a political
party.Later, they served as presidents
and helped usher in what some historians call a “democratic revolution” in
1800, but they didn’t really build original institutions in the early 1800s
anywhere close to what Washington and Hamilton did in the 1780s and 1790s.In terms of building lasting American
institutions, Madison’s triumvirate of nationalism in the 1780s with Washington
and Hamilton was probably more important to the creation of America that what
Madison did with Jefferson.

Q: I always imagined Hamilton as a tragic figure – so
much potential yet his life was cut short on a duel. Your book change my mind
somewhat on the way he ended his life. First of all, he shot into the air which
tells me he had finally gained some control over himself. He seems to also have
found a sincere faith. It’s this last part that intrigues me the most. When I
read it, I wondered if this wasn’t part of the reason Jefferson was so keen on
the separation of church and state. I may be making connections that just
aren’t there, but it’s obvious there was no love lost between the two men and
Jefferson could be rather petty. Thoughts?

Steve - Not
all Hamilton biographers would agree with this, but I do think the loss of
Hamilton’s eldest son in a duel broke his heart and led him back to his faith. Additionally,
I don’t see his proposal for a Christian Constitution Society as a cynical get
out the vote effort for the Federalists. I think he was genuinely horrified by
Jefferson’s romance with the French Revolution, and all that represented. But
Jefferson was devoted to the idea of separating church and state long before
his war with Hamilton, so I don’t think there’s a connection between his stance
on this matter and his relationship with Hamilton. I would say that Jefferson
was a petty man in the sense that he resented Hamilton for being 12 to 14 years
younger than him and in my view smarter than him . . . Plus Hamilton could be
brash, and lacked the gentility prized by the Southern gentry. It was gauche to
be so direct, and that put off the chronically shy Jefferson who hated personal
confrontation and utilized surrogates to do his dirty work for him.

Tony - Hamilton
is certainly in many ways a tragic figure.He might have contributed to the creation of the American republic for
at least three more decades if he would have lived a full life and not been
shot by Burr.On the other hand, he was
to some degree damaged political goods late in his life between the Reynolds
affair and the factional in-fighting among the Federalists.My estimate is that he would have continued
to be an important player in national politics though would probably not have
won national political office.

Q: One of my favorite lines in your book is about
Hancock. You say that he would be “a mere footnote in American history were it
not for the presence of his oversized signature on the Declaration of
Independence.” (I take it you’re not buying the king can read it without his
glasses story.) Of course, there are other books that praise Hancock, e.g.,
Harlow Giles Unger’s John Hancock:
Merchant King and American Patriot. I always wonder if authors who write
about the Founding Fathers get so close to their subjects that they give them a
sort of favored-son status. Like parents, they’re reluctant to criticize their
own children, but their happy to criticize the other kids on the neighborhood.
Not accusing you of that as your portrayal of Hamilton and Washington is
somewhat unvarnished, but wondered if you see that too.

Steve - Great
point. It happens all the time. Authors fall in love with their subjects.
Perhaps I am guilty of that as well. But I’d like to think that I didn’t fall
in love with my subject, but I am passionate about the truth. And the truth is
for over two hundred years people who should know better have spread, in many
cases intentionally, distortions about Hamilton and the Federalists. This has
been done for a variety of reasons, one of which is as parochial as you can
get, which is to elevate the importance of Virginia in the founding of the
United States. The other, more important reason, is most historians are of a
progressive bent, and Jefferson’s emphasis on equality (or I should say, his
theoretical emphasis on equality) appeals to them. As does his cheap populism –
Hamilton is the father of Wall Street, a bastion of American life that they
find particularly loathsome. Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and Franklin Roosevelt
all propagated the idea that Hamilton was our founding plutocrat, and that
Jefferson began the work of defending the rights of the common man that was
continued by Jackson and FDR. The odd thing is that if you happened to be a
“common” free black in the north during the late 18th and early 19
centuries, you would have a very different take on just who was the champion of
the common man. The same holds true for Native Americans…. That’s what motivated
me more than any love for Hamilton or Washington. History is important to a
nation, and myths that distort that history can be quite harmful. Far too many
public figures and authors have propagated these populist myths in the service
of an ideological agenda that pays little heed to the truth.

Tony - My
own interest in Washington and Hamilton also stems from an interest in examining
the principles and actions of the American founding and educating the general
public in those ideas.I have to admit
that Washington is still my favorite founder because I am continually impressed
by Washington’s great virtue of being entrusted with power to serve the
republic and then surrendering that power.His contemporaries called him Cincinnatus after the legendary Roman
general who served the republic and returned to his plow.I have a very strong interest in Alexander
Hamilton’s success story as an immigrant to America, how he embraced the American
principles of liberty and self-government, and then helped to establish
American constitutional and economic institutions.Their relationship was so profoundly
important to the creation of America that I am still staggered that Washington & Hamilton is the only
book ever written on the subject.

Q: I’d be remiss if I didn’t ask if you’d seen
Hamilton the Musical. I have not, and I doubt it will be playing in North
Dakota anytime soon. If you have, what did you think of it?

Steve - I have
seen the musical, and I will be seeing it again this summer. My wife took me as
a birthday present. We loved it. I had followed the musical’s progress for
years, and I have to confess that when I first heard about it I figured it
would be a major flop… Who would go see a hip-hop musical about the nation’s
first Treasury Secretary? Obviously, I could not have been more wrong. I guess
this is why I’m in academia and not making a killing on Broadway. The one thing
that irritated me about the musical is the two references to Martha Washington
naming her randy tomcat “Hamilton.” It’s complete fiction, but Lin-Manuel
Miranda stops at one point in the performance and looks at the crowd and says
“that’s true.” It’s not true. He got that from Ron Chernow, who mentions the
bogus tomcat tale in his biography of Hamilton. It’s just one of the many myths
that continue to bedevil Hamilton, and it’s propagated by folks who should know
better.

Tony - If
someone has an extra $1,500 for a ticket, I’ll gladly see the show.Seriously, I have not seen it, but I want
to.There is a very interesting debate
going on in the blogosphere about whether the play presents an accurate view of
Hamilton.Conservatives argue that the
play presents Hamilton from a progressive point of view, while liberals complain
that the play paints Hamilton as too much of an abolitionist against
slavery.For my part, I have seen a lot
of young people at my lectures and book-signings who want to speak and learn
more about Hamilton, the other founders, and the American Revolution.Many of them have read our book, the Chernow
book, David McCullough, or Joseph Ellis as they seek to learn more.That is a very good result of the play.